What moral values ​​are important to you. Moral values ​​- what is it? How are moral values ​​formed? The Role of Television as a Means of Formation of Spiritual and Moral Values ​​of Primary School Students

We all live in a society, we interact daily with a lot of people: relatives, colleagues, and just strangers: passers-by on the street, in public places - shops, cafes, cinemas. To make this interaction as comfortable as possible, society has adopted certain rules of conduct, which are usually called public morality. On the one hand, it is clear that if each individual does only what he wants, regardless of the convenience of others, life in a society of such people will become much more difficult and even dangerous. How can you exist calmly if you don’t know what to expect from others? Therefore, moral standards are protection for people. On the other hand, public morality in some matters is often a stumbling block, and sometimes there are those who declare themselves free from all morality. We usually call such people immoral, socially dangerous, and sometimes they deserve to be called villains or tyrants.

If morality is a certain framework, norms by which humanity regulates relationships within society, and they, as a rule, are duplicated in the legislation of any civilized country, then moral values ​​are what every person is guided by when he behaves this way and not otherwise. These are beacons that people are guided by on their life path. Well, or they are not oriented - here, of course, options are possible.

How are the moral values ​​of each person formed? Initially, of course, they begin to take shape in the family. It is the relatives who tell the baby what is good and right, and what cannot be done. The moral feelings of preschoolers are formed according to the accepted moral standards in the family - and they can be different depending on the social status, country of residence, religion and many other aspects. Children at this age do not yet question what adults say, they are guided by the behavior of their parents and elders, so a certain foundation of morality is laid even then.

The child grows, goes to school, begins to communicate with classmates, with teachers. There comes a time when it is the authority of peers that can determine the behavior of a student. As a rule, this happens in adolescence, and to one degree or another affects any, even the most “correct” and domestic children. The fact is that at such a critical age, the child is not yet able to focus on inner freedom and his own desires and concepts, it is more important for him not to differ from his peers, and parents and teachers, as it seems to him, only limit his freedom.

The influence on the formation of moral beliefs and rules of behavior continues into adulthood. The environment at the institute, at work, and, finally, the endless stream of information from TV screens, from the Internet - all this is simply impossible to ignore. And this, of course, determines the scope of what a person considers permissible and what is inappropriate. Middle-aged and older people, for the most part, consider their moral attitudes unshakable, which cannot be said about the younger members of society. If drug addiction, for example, or child abuse is condemned now just as it was decades ago, then the attitude towards some other vices has become more tolerant.

The morality of the bulk of society in the country is a parameter whose importance should not be underestimated. It determines the spiritual state of the whole nation, and this is closely connected with its security, and with the demographic situation, and, ultimately, with the level of well-being of the people.

Now the vast majority of countries that consider themselves civilized are oriented towards building a humane society, that is, one in which human life is the highest value. The concept of spiritual and moral development and education of the individual in a humane society is based on the idea that all people have equal rights and have an equal degree of freedom. On the same foundation stands the concept of spiritual and moral education of the personality of a citizen of Russia. Despite the fact that in our country in recent decades there has been a significant change in values, the basic, highest spiritual and moral values ​​remain unshakable. Whatever the political system, whatever changes take place in society, I want to believe that such values ​​as kindness, justice, mercy, honesty, love, family and loyalty will always be valued above all else. It is these concepts that fill the human soul with light, make a person happy.

No matter how much power, power, wealth are valued in modern society, deep down everyone understands how all this is unsteady, how superficial it is, while true values ​​always remain with a person, because they make a person a higher being, worthy of respect. It is especially noticeable who is worth what in difficult conditions for survival. Only a person who has an inner core, clearly understanding what is good for him and what is evil, is able not to lose his human appearance in such a situation.

When moral degradation occurs, a person is doomed to death, because for him there are no longer any guidelines, meaning and fulfillment of life. In the end, the true meaning in life appears only when a person is useful, when he is needed: relatives or at least to himself. Even ancient philosophers came to this conclusion. They also argued that it is not the fear of punishment that will most certainly keep a person from an evil deed, but conscience - the most severe judge.

The well-known saying of the German philosopher Hegel: “Morality is the mind of the will” remains true to this day. Every day we make a choice: to act, one way or another, guided precisely by our internal attitudes. Moral and ethical values, which we are guided by, are the restriction of our freedom, according to them we control our actions. What is important, what stands above our desires? As a rule, when choosing a line of conduct, a moral person will weigh not only the degree of his desires, but also coordinate them with how the result of his behavior will affect the freedom, well-being, and mood of another person. Moral behavior is behavior adjusted in such a way as not to harm the neighbor, because, as you know, personal freedom ends where the freedom of another person begins.

Sometimes it is very difficult to make a choice, precisely because it is difficult to calculate and weigh the possible consequences. And any act of a human being can be interpreted in completely different ways. There is black and there is white, and as you know, there are a great many shades. It is easy to condemn some act that seemed cruel or frivolous without knowing all the nuances. It is worth starting to understand more deeply - and moments are revealed that make you think and understand that everything is not so simple. Therefore, a moral person not only himself will never harm another person, but also will not allow himself a sharp condemnation of another. Of course, there are actions that are absolute evil, no matter how you look at them. They are usually associated with violence, murders, mass destruction of people, but we are not talking about this now, but about those manifestations of morality that we encounter every day.

Religion is the bearer of moral norms, and it cannot be underestimated, because it also regulates the relationship between people and the norms of everyday behavior, and not just the attitude of a person to God and the church. In most world religions, God is the embodiment of goodness and justice, and the main commandments are the most important life guidelines: do not kill, do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not commit adultery. Perhaps, at the moment when a certain shift or substitution of values ​​occurs, the role of religion in the life of society increases - it contributes to the unification of people, is a fulcrum in an unstable world. Morality and religion, of course, are most closely related, but at the same time, history knows many examples when the most monstrous evil was done under the slogan "God willing".

So, moral and spiritual values ​​are the foundation without which no, even the most high-tech society, can survive.

Moral values was last modified: April 20th, 2019 by Elena Pogodaeva

Federal Agency for Education of the Russian Federation

Ryazan State Radiotechnical University

Department of Philosophy

Test

in the discipline "Philosophy"

on the topic: "Moral values".

Completed: student gr. 9030

Golikova I. N.

Checked: st. teacher

Rostovtsev A. N.

Ryazan, 2011

Introduction…………………………………….……………….....…….. 3

Development of ethical ideas……………..…………………... 6

Contemporary ethical concepts

Ethics of non-violence……………………….……………………….. 15

The idea of ​​reverence for life……………………………... 19

A little psychological aspect………………………………….. 24

Conclusion……………………………………………………………. 39

References……..…………………………………………..… 41

INTRODUCTION

First, about words. The words "morality", "morality", "ethics" are close in meaning. But they originated in three different languages. The word "ethics" comes from the Greek. ethos - temper, character, custom. It was introduced into use 2300 years ago by Aristotle, who called "ethical" the virtues or virtues of a person manifested in his behavior - such qualities as courage, prudence, honesty, and "ethics" - the science of these qualities. The word "morality" is of Latin origin. It is derived from lat. mos (pl. mores), which meant about the same as ethos in Greek - temper. custom. Cicero, following the example of Aristotle, formed from him the words moralis - moral and moralitas - morality, which became the Latin equivalent of the Greek words ethical and ethics. And “morality” is a Russian word that comes from the root “nature.” It first entered the dictionary of the Russian language in the 18th century and began to be used along with the words “ethics” and “morality” as their synonym. So three words appeared in Russian with approximately the same meaning. Over time, they acquired some semantic shades that distinguish them from each other. But in the practice of word usage, these words are practically interchangeable (and their semantic shades can almost always be caught from the context).

Moral culture, like all social culture, has two main aspects: 1) values ​​and 2) regulations.

Moral (moral) values ​​are what the ancient Greeks called "ethical virtues". The ancient sages considered prudence, benevolence, courage, and justice to be the main of these virtues. In Judaism, Christianity, Islam, the highest moral values ​​are associated with faith in God and zealous reverence for him. Honesty, fidelity, respect for elders, diligence, patriotism are revered as moral values ​​among all peoples. And although in life people do not always show such qualities, they are highly valued by people, and those who possess them are respected. These values, presented in their impeccable, absolutely complete and perfect expression, act as ethical ideals.

Moral (moral) regulatives are the rules of behavior focused on the specified values. Moral regulations are varied. Each individual chooses (consciously or unconsciously) in the space of culture those of them that are most suitable for him. Among them there may be those that are not approved by others. But in every more or less stable culture there is a certain system of universally recognized moral regulations, which, according to tradition, are considered binding on everyone. Such regulations are the norms of morality. The Old Testament lists 10 such norms - “the commandments of God”, written on the tablets, which were given by God to the prophet Moses when he climbed Mount Sinai (“Thou shalt not kill”, “Do not steal”, “Do not commit adultery”, etc.). The norms of true Christian behavior are the 7 commandments that Jesus Christ pointed out in the Sermon on the Mount: "Resist not evil"; “Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you”; “Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who offend you and persecute you,” etc.

It is clear that moral values ​​and ideals, on the one hand, and moral regulations and norms, on the other, are inextricably linked. Any moral value presupposes the presence of appropriate regulators of behavior aimed at it. And any moral regulator implies the existence of a value to which it is directed. If honesty is a moral value, then the regulative follows: "Be honest." And vice versa, if a person, by virtue of his inner conviction, follows the regulation: “Be honest,” then honesty is a moral value for him. Such interrelation of moral values ​​and regulations in many cases makes their separate consideration unnecessary. Speaking of honesty, they often mean both honesty as a value and a regulator that requires being honest. When it comes to characteristics that are equally related to both moral values ​​and ideals and moral regulations and norms, they are usually called the principles of morality (morality, ethics).

The most important feature of morality is the finality of moral values ​​and the imperative nature of moral regulations. This means that the principles of morality are valuable in themselves. That is, to questions like: “Why do we need them?”, “Why should we strive for moral values?”, “Why should we observe moral standards?” - cannot be answered otherwise than to admit that the purpose for which we follow moral principles is to follow them. There is no tautology here: just following moral principles is an end in itself, that is, the highest, final goal, ”and there are no other goals that we would like to achieve by following them. They are not a means to an end beyond their own.

DEVELOPMENT OF ETHICAL CONCEPTS

Morality occupies a very special place in the system of human values. Moral consciousness determines the behavior of people and their relationships - interpersonal, group, social. The moral criterion is applicable as an evaluative basis to all areas of human activity.

It is difficult to draw a line dividing the flow of time into two unequal parts: before and after the emergence of morality. It is even more difficult to determine the very moment when mankind is enlightened by the light of moral ideas. Becoming is always a process. The formation of moral ideas, norms, principles, traditions, which initially became the only regulator of human relations, is a long, complex and contradictory process.

The emergence of morality is difficult to overestimate; any active form of human activity needs moral criteria for evaluation, the absence of such criteria or inconsistency with them can negate the most grandiose successes of practical and scientific activity, politics, economics, ideology.

The formation of moral norms, principles, traditions marks a transition from spontaneous forms of regulation of behavior and relationships to orderly, consciously regulated ones. The moral ideas of a person, formed over the centuries, are reflected in such categories as good, evil, justice, conscience, duty, the meaning of life, happiness, love, in moral norms and principles that regulate people's relations.

A special branch of philosophical knowledge that has concentrated and generalized the experience of moral comprehension of reality is called ethics. It arises in antiquity and is associated primarily with the name of Aristotle, who determined the place of ethics in the system of knowledge (ethics, along with politics, Aristotle classified as a practical science). In the famous Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle develops the categories of goodness, virtue, happiness, analyzes the concepts that are the criteria for moral assessment, considers the main vices and morally unworthy actions. Of particular interest is the Aristotelian interpretation of the categories of justice - "justice" and injustice - "unjustice". Everything unjust is unjust. Between the opposition of the just and the unjust, there is a relatively balanced middle, which the philosopher calls fair equality before the law, which has already assigned unequal shares of justice to unequal people in relation to each other, corresponding to their position in society. Therefore, the Aristotelian concept of justice has a dual character: on the one hand, justice is distributed in unequal portions between people in accordance with their social and property status, and on the other hand, justice is related to the law: unequal shares received by equal people are the basis for initiating claims for about restoring justice. Justice here is not a purely moral category, but a concept closely related to law. Aristotle's concept reflects and consolidates the foundations of the existing slave system, in which slaves were excluded from legal and moral relations.

In addition to Aristotle, ethical issues were presented in the writings of the Stoics and Epicureans.

Stoic ethics refers to the interpretation of the fundamental categories of good and evil. According to the Stoics, one cannot exist without the other. What is estimated on a cosmic scale as a manifestation of good can be perceived by an individual as evil, because it infringes on his interests or deprives him of vital benefits. Thus, good is something objectively existing, the comprehension of which is available only to the highest (divine) mind, while evil is the result of a subjective assessment of a person (seemingly evil is evil).

On the other hand, evil is not something absolutely bad and negative. The purpose of evil is to strengthen the spirit and vitality, so that the one who experiences this evil overcomes it. This means that evil is necessary as a condition for the perfection of the personality; it is unpleasant, but useful.

The goal of man is to achieve harmony with the divine will. This is possible if a person is submissive to fate, shows fortitude and immunity to suffering and does not submit to passions (such as fear, sadness, pleasure, lust). Considering passions as a source of evil, the Stoics considered it reasonable to stay in constant balance, to observe the measure in everything; actions were considered as the result of the free manifestation of the will of a person who knew the universal law (necessity).

The ethics of Epicurus addresses the same issues as the ethics of the Stoics, but treats them in the opposite way. The achievement of a good by a person is considered as a path, the passage of which is based on a clear distinction between the factors that contribute to the achievement of the goal, and the factors that prevent it. The first is a source of pleasure, the second is suffering. A person receives pleasure by satisfying his natural needs, and suffers if he encounters an obstacle to this.

Suffering should be avoided, but passions should not be avoided, as they are a natural manifestation of human nature. Dispassion is not a virtue. According to Epicurus, a person must clearly delimit in his life what is in the power of fate and, therefore, invariably, from what depends on the person himself (this area is the sphere of active action).

The next important stage in the history of the formation of ethics is associated with Christianity. It is significant that early Christian moral ideas were formed in conditions when society was already in a state of social heterogeneity, social (class) and property (estate) stratification. The concept of inequality between a free citizen and a slave had already taken root, there were already norms for the behavior of the oppressed - obedience, obedience, unconditional submission. With its negative attitude towards property in any of its forms ("do not collect treasures on the ground"), Christian morality opposed itself to the type of moral consciousness that prevailed in the Roman Empire. The main idea in it is the idea of ​​spiritual equality - the equality of all before God.

Christian ethics readily accepted everything acceptable to it from earlier ethical systems. Thus, the well-known rule of morality "Do not do to a man what you do not wish for yourself", the authorship of which is attributed to Confucius and the Jewish sages, entered the canon of Christian ethics along with the commandments of the Sermon on the Mount. The fact that universal truths were presented as the revelation of God provided Christianity with popularity and the possibility of spreading in various social strata.

Early Christian ethics laid the foundations of humanism, preaching philanthropy, unselfishness, mercy, non-resistance to evil by violence. The latter presupposed resistance without causing harm to another, moral opposition. However, this in no way meant giving up their beliefs. In the same sense, the question of the moral right to be condemned was also raised: "Judge not, lest you be judged" must be understood as "Do not condemn, do not pronounce judgment, for you yourself are not sinless", but stop the perpetrator of evil, stop the spread of evil.

Christian ethics may seem inconsistent. Let's turn to the New Testament. Anyone who carefully reads the Gospel cannot but be struck by the commandments and preaching of kindness and love for the enemy, which are incompatible with the statement: "He who is not with me is against me" (Matt. 12:30) or with the words: "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I came not to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to divide a man from his father, and a daughter from her mother, and a daughter-in-law from her mother-in-law. And the enemies of a man are his household" (Matthew 10, 34-36). But this contradiction is apparent, it is eliminated with a deeper understanding of the principle of universal love: "You heard what was said:" Love your neighbor and hate your enemy ". But I say to you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you... for If you love those who love, what reward do you have?" (Matthew 5:43-46).

Medieval ethics returns to rethinking the content of the main ethical categories, and above all good and evil. Augustine interprets evil as the absence or insufficiency of good. At the same time, everything created by God is involved in the idea of ​​absolute goodness. In the process of translating this idea into the material, the amount of good decreases, and as a result, the thing is always less perfect than its idea. The manifestation of evil is connected with the activity of man, his will. The divine principle is free from responsibility for the evil that exists on earth. According to Augustine, the bearers of morality are those who are chosen by God, and the moral perfection of a person is not, therefore, a consequence of his upbringing, but is given to him from above. The greatest virtue is love for God, while attachment to earthly goods is considered a sin.

The ethics of the late Middle Ages (Thomas Aquinas) connects the categories of good and evil with moral choice, the manifestation of free will, which in turn correlates with reason and the manifestation of divine grace. The goal of a person is to achieve an absolute good, the possession of such a good is happiness. Along with this highest goal, a person can strive for other goals. Divine will can be comprehended by the human mind. The equality of faith and reason (instead of their opposition) strengthens the ethical positions of the late Middle Ages, making them less vulnerable in comparison with the early concepts of this period.

The Renaissance, as you know, has a pronounced humanistic orientation. The main subject of research is the man himself, considered as the unity of bodily and spiritual substances. Man is perfect because he was created by God. He has qualities, skills and virtues that allow him to be called a personality. Elevating a person, humanists at the same time emphasize the importance of his moral responsibility, making high spiritual demands on him.

Turning to the ethical tradition of antiquity, thinkers of the Renaissance make an attempt to revive Epicureanism, which considered pleasure to be the highest good. Thus, the late Renaissance thinker Erasmus of Rotterdam in his ethical constructions proceeds from the requirement not to violate the measure in anything, for the observance of the measure ensures the stability of human life. The ethics of the Renaissance declared the idea of ​​the fundamental equality of people, regardless of their position in society and origin.

An attempt to build a non-religious ethics was undertaken by B. Spinoza, which was the reason for accusing him of atheism. Relying simultaneously on the Epicureans and the Stoics, Spinoza builds his own idea of ​​a perfect man - a sage who arranges his life, guided by reason and intuitions, in a society whose legal laws ensure the observance of moral standards. Thus, the sources of moral values, according to Spinoza, are, on the one hand, the person himself, who intuitively comprehends moral guidelines, and, on the other hand, the state, which provides legal consolidation of moral norms.

Spinoza analyzes the traditional ethical categories of good and evil in relation to the concepts of “pleasure” and “displeasure”: for example, good, since it is good and benefits, is perceived positively (pleasure), while evil, since it causes damage and does not bring benefits , evaluated negatively (displeasure). Spinoza's definition of human freedom is also interesting. Proceeding from the idea that “a thing is called free that exists only by the necessity of its own nature and is determined to act only by itself,” Spinoza calls a free person who is guided by his own mind and goes his own way.

The author of the Treatise on Human Nature, D. Hume saw his task in building ethics as a descriptive science that interprets facts (relationships, behavior) from a psychological point of view. Moral consciousness, according to Hume, is irrational, its content is formed at the expense of sensual and intuitive sources; it is unstable, because the moral attitude and evaluation are subjective, sometimes depending on the inner state of mind of the subject, not reflecting the actual significance of the attitude or action.

The mental state of a person, affects, associations, emotional background affect the mechanism of moral regulation more than rational comprehension. "We feel morality rather than judge it ... Our decisions about what is morally right and what is vicious are obviously perceptions ..." Based on this general premise, Hume interprets the categories of good and evil, saying that virtue is distinguished by that pleasure, and vice by that suffering, which arouses in us any deed, any feeling or character.

The Age of Enlightenment began with the overthrow of pre-existing ethical concepts. The Enlighteners were equally dissatisfied with both Christian ethics and atheism. The denial of all moral traditions returned to the original elements of ethical theory - categories. Again the "eternal" question about the sources of good and evil was raised. The interpretation of these categories was redirected to the social sphere. Evil was associated with injustice, social inequality, imperfection of the state system. Civilization, which has brought inequality, stratification, alienation, is also declared evil for humanity. A person's desire for well-being (which is understood as material well-being) separates people, individualizes their activities, and often makes them act contrary to their moral ideas. In a civilized society, a person loses morality and freedom. The property that he possesses and cannot give up makes him dependent. True freedom does not consist in possession, but in the rejection of property, which is possible only in a society returned to the "state of nature" (J.J. Rousseau).

The thinkers of the Enlightenment are remembered not only as subversives and utopians, but also as witty authors of brilliant aphorisms, full of wisdom and grace: "When we are no longer able to enjoy pleasures, we begin to defame them" (La Mettrie), hours: the simpler the mechanism, the less often it deteriorates" (Chamfort).

I. Kant's ethics is based on the categorical imperative, the inner moral law of the individual. "Two things always fill the soul with new and ever stronger wonder and reverence... - this is the starry sky above me and the moral law in me," wrote Kant. In the Metaphysics of Morals, he sets out a detailed and reasoned ethical concept. The moral sense, understood by Kant as the susceptibility to pleasure or displeasure, is related to the law of duty; it is inherent in everyone; without it, a person would be "morally dead", no different from an animal. Moral sense is an innate quality. Kant refers conscience to the same category - "practical reason, reminding a person in each case of application of the law of his duty to justify or condemn." It is impossible to completely deny the presence of conscience in someone, we can only say that a person "has a tendency not to pay attention to her judgments."

The category of debt occupies an extremely important place in Kant's ethical system. The duty towards others is to do good, the duty towards oneself is to preserve one's life and live it worthily. "The maxim of benevolence (practical philanthropy) is the duty of all people to each other (it doesn't matter whether they are considered worthy of love or not) according to the ethical law of perfection: love your neighbor as yourself." A person should "do good, that is, to the extent possible, help people and contribute to their happiness, not hoping to receive any reward for this." His duty "to himself consists .... in the prohibition to deprive himself of the advantage of a moral being, consisting in acting according to the principles ... The vices that oppose this duty: lies, stinginess, false humility (subservience)" .

Duty to oneself involves such duties as self-preservation, the development of one's natural forces (spiritual, mental and bodily), "increasing one's moral perfection." The beginning of all human wisdom Kant calls moral self-knowledge, which forms "impartiality in judgments about oneself when compared with the law and sincerity in recognizing one's own moral dignity or unworthiness" .

Kant's younger contemporary, G.-W.-F. Hegel, who called morality the mind of the will, argued that "man does not become the master of nature until he has become the master of himself." Hegel considers morality in relation to law: “What can be demanded from a person on the basis of law is a certain duty. But something is a debt insofar as it must be performed from moral considerations ... Legal obligations are characterized by external necessity, while moral based on subjective will. A moral person seeks to compare his inner motives with generally accepted external institutions. Compliance with this measure of conformity guarantees the individual's self-preservation.

Moral duty, according to Hegel, implies duties: "The right leaves the mindset completely free. Morality, on the other hand, mainly concerns the mindset and requires that the act be performed out of respect for the duty. Therefore, the appropriate course of action is moral if the motive reason for the latter is respect for the law" .

Hegel's ethical ideas are consonant with Kant's, especially his reasoning about the duty of "general philanthropy" and duties. They are imbued with the spirit of humanism, characteristic of German classical philosophy as a whole.

The ethics of A. Schopenhauer are characterized by the features of nihilism and pessimism. The central concept of his system - "world will" - is understood as a single principle, which is the cause of the emergence of all things and processes, including evil. In man, the world will is realized in the form of base instincts and affects. By suppressing the will to live in oneself, a person limits this force that creates evil. A moral, from the point of view of Schopenhauer, a person must understand that the generally accepted judgment that we live for happiness is erroneous, and the natural attribute of life is suffering, which must be taken for granted, without trying to get away from it (“the more a person suffers, the sooner he reaches his true goal in life. A person must limit his claims and desires to the utmost: the fewer of them, the easier it is to achieve satisfaction ("every limitation contributes to happiness"). In relation to others, one should show altruism, up to self-denial, sympathize with anyone who needs it. Thus, the person gets rid of his own egoism.

The conclusion to which Schopenhauer approaches is exceptionally pessimistic: “... the goal of our being is not happiness at all. On the contrary, if we look more impartially at life, it will seem to us, as it were, purposely adapted so that we cannot feel happy in it ... by its very nature, life is something to which we should not feel inclination, to which we should be discouraged and from which we should renounce ... ".

The philosopher lived for seventy-two years - lonely, joyless, under the constant influence of fear, distrust, extreme suspiciousness, in a state of enmity with the whole world, and above all with his great contemporary - Hegel.

Another "great subverter" is F. Nietzsche. Much in his writings causes surprise and bewilderment. "Evil wisdom" - you can't name his aphorisms and sayings more precisely, in which, among other things, the ethical position of the author is revealed. “Morality today,” writes Nietzsche, “is a subterfuge for superfluous and accidental people, for a rabble poor in spirit and strength who should not have to live, morality, because mercy; for it says to everyone:“ you still represent something very important "Which, of course, is a lie... Some devil must have invented morality to torment people with pride, and another devil will one day deprive them of it in order to torment them with self-contempt."

The perfect man, according to Nietzsche, does not need imperfect morality - he is above all moral standards. "To make yourself a whole person and in everything you do, to have in mind his highest good - this gives more than compassionate motives and actions for the sake of others." A person who goes towards his goal consciously and purposefully considers other people as a means to achieve the goal or as an obstacle in his path.

Life as a realization of free will and suicide as a strong "consolation", extreme egocentrism and altruism ("everything that is done out of love is always done on the other side of good and evil") - completely incompatible, contradictory and paradoxical positions are brought together in Nietzsche's philosophy , one of the most incomprehensible thinkers, completing the XIX century.

MODERN ETHICAL CONCEPTS

Ethics of non-violence

Human life is constantly connected with violence. The method of solving state, interpersonal, national problems from a position of strength, one might say, has become traditional. The words are habitually heard: "the one who is stronger is right", "the strong is always the weak one to blame", "the winner is not judged". Strong will, strong power, strong hand - strength always has a positive connotation in our minds: strong means worthy of respect. So, strength is a good quality, it is good, it is good. Another thing is violence. Violence, coercion, captivity - "an offensive, illegal, self-willed action" (V. Dahl), i.e. an action that compels someone to act contrary to their will, desire, need. But violence is only the use of force. And force reveals itself exclusively in the process of application. It is not possible to draw a line between "non-violent" use of force and actual violence.

The existence of violence as a means of acquiring and maintaining rights and privileges, economic and political dominance, is a well-known fact. Depending on how violence is qualified, the tasks of ethical and philosophical concepts are reduced either to the apology of the latter (in the case of recognizing its right to exist and its positive assessment), or to its criticism.

Let us turn to the apology of violence - there is no shortage of material here: the philosophy of the 19th century. gives us such examples as F. Nietzsche, E. Dühring, K. Marx. Although formally Marxism rejected theories that assign a decisive role to violence in history (recall the famous polemic between Engels and Dühring), in fact it was Marxism that turned violence from theory into practice, made it a means of destroying man. "Violence is the midwife of every old society when it is pregnant with a new one. Violence itself is an economic potency." The dictatorship of the proletariat is violence elevated to the principle, to the rank of the law of the revolution.

The ethics of non-violence arises precisely when violence itself already rules the world, creates lawlessness. From the history of ethics, we know that any new trend arises in opposition to the existing and dominant trend (recall the early Christian ethics or the ethics of the Renaissance). At the same time, the emerging ethical current always seeks and finds support in tradition, in the ideals of previous eras. Such an ideal for the ethics of non-violence was the principle of philanthropy - a universal, fundamental moral law.

The ethics of non-violence is the rationale for such principles and methods for solving problems and conflicts that exclude the use of violence against a person (moral and physical). The ethics of non-violence is a way of life in accordance with which a person builds his relationships with people, relates to all living things, to nature.

It is generally accepted that the ideal of non-violence is formulated in the Sermon on the Mount (New Testament). The commandments of non-resistance to evil with violence entered the consciousness of a person with great difficulty and at first seemed simply impossible: they contradicted generally accepted norms of morality, principles, natural instincts, and traditions. We read: "Whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt. 5:39), and immediately the question arises in the mind: why? Why endure, why not answer the offender, why give the opportunity to humiliate yourself again? It is difficult, very difficult to accept it with your heart and mind, and even more difficult to carry it out. In the Sermon on the Mount, non-resistance to evil was seen as a manifestation of moral perfection, individual moral superiority over another's sin. The non-multiplication of evil was regarded as a manifestation of good.

A significant role in the development of the principles of the ethics of non-violence belongs to L. Tolstoy. He wrote that the recognition of the need to resist evil by violence is nothing more than justification by people of their usual favorite vices: revenge, self-interest, envy, lust for power, cowardice, anger. "The majority of the people of the Christian world feel ... the plight of their situation and use to save themselves the means that, according to their worldview, they consider valid. The means is the violence of some people over others. Some people who consider the existing state order beneficial for themselves, the violence of state activity they try to maintain this order, others, by the same violence of revolutionary activity, try to destroy the existing system and install another, better one in its place. According to Tolstoy, the main error of the authors of political doctrines, which led to the plight, is that they consider it possible to unite people through violence so that they all, without resisting, submit to the same structure of life. "All violence consists in the fact that some people, under the threat of suffering or death, force other people to do what the raped do not want."

So, violence is not a means of resolving conflicts and contradictions: it does not create anything, but only destroys. He who repays evil with evil multiplies suffering, intensifies disasters, but does not relieve himself or others from them. Tolstoy brings us to the conclusion: violence is powerless, fruitless, destructive, inhumane. Of course, it is difficult for us to unconditionally accept this position. But isn't it more difficult to live in a world where evil multiplies hourly? The ideas of L. Tolstoy are finding more and more adherents and successors.

Name M.L. King, who gave his life in the fight for justice, is known to everyone. The Institute for Nonviolence in New York is named after him. King's works have been translated into Russian, and now there is an opportunity to get acquainted with his ethical views. His work "Love your enemies" is interesting - it contains not only the rationale for the principles of universal love for humanity, but also recommendations for the implementation of these principles. King is not only a moralist, but also a psychologist: he is aware of how difficult it is to accept the principles of non-violence and philanthropy, to what extent the psychological problems of the incompatibility of the principles familiar to people and the ideas he preaches are deep.

The commandment "Love your enemies" has always been, perhaps, the most difficult... Some people sincerely believed that in real life it was impossible to fulfill. It is easy to love those who love you, but how to love those who secretly or openly try to dominate you... The commandment "love your enemies" is not a pious wish of a utopian dreamer, but an absolute condition of our survival. Love even for enemies is the key to solving all the problems that exist in our world ... Let's be realistic and ask: how can we love our enemies? First, we must develop the ability to forgive. He who is deprived of the power of forgiveness is also deprived of the power of love.

Once again, we are faced with a paradox or seeming inconsistency: the victim must forgive, and forgive willingly and voluntarily and not in response to repentance, but before any repentance. The mechanism "offended - sorry" should work almost automatically. To make the work of forgiveness easier for us, King explains its healing power: “When we forgive, we forget in the sense that evil is no longer a psychological barrier to establishing a new relationship ... Forgiveness means reconciliation, reunion again ... We must understand that the evil done by our neighbor - the enemy, the cause of our suffering, never reflects the whole essence of this person. Elements of goodness can be found in the character of our worst enemies.

No less famous than M.L. King, name - M. Gandhi. Another fate that has become an example of the implementation of the preached principles. A passionate fighter for the independence of India, he dreamed of gaining freedom by peaceful means. The main principle for Gandhi was the principle of non-violence, which involves two forms of struggle: non-cooperation and civil disobedience. These views are reflected in his work "My Faith in Nonviolence".

“I discovered,” writes Gandhi, “that life exists in the midst of destruction and, therefore, there must be a law higher than the law of destruction. Only under such a law will society be built correctly and intelligently and life will be worth living ... Wherever a quarrel arises, wherever an opponent confronts you, conquer him with love ... this law of love operates in a way that the law of destruction has never operated. In Gandhi's opinion, a fairly intense preparation is needed for non-violence to become an integral part of the mentality. Only by embarking on the path of self-restraint and discipline can one achieve the desired result. “As long as there is no sincere support from the mind, only external observance will be only a mask, harmful both to the person himself and to others. The perfection of the state is achieved only when the mind, body and speech are in harmony ... Non-violence is the weapon of the strong. Fear and love are contradictory concepts.Love recklessly gives without thinking about what it will receive in return.Love fights the whole world as if it were itself and ultimately dominates all other feelings... The law of love works like the law of gravity, regardless whether we accept it or not. Just as a scientist works miracles by applying the law of nature in various ways, so a person who applies the law of love with the accuracy of a scientist can work even greater miracles.

It so happened that it was the 20th century, which cannot be called the century of humanism and mercy, that gave rise to ideas that are in direct conflict with the prevailing practice of solving all problems and conflicts from a position of strength. Quiet but steadfast resistance turned out to be brought to life - disagreement, disobedience, non-retribution by evil for evil. A person placed in a hopeless situation, humiliated and powerless, finds a non-violent means of struggle and liberation (primarily internal). He, as it were, assumes responsibility for the evil done by others, takes upon himself the sin of others and atones for him by his non-giving back of evil. He puts a barrier to evil, with his good, with his love, closing the world from the destructive influence of hatred. "Even the worst of us has a grain of goodness, and the best of us has a grain of evil," King wrote. But how often do we forget this simple truth. It opens up to us with non-violent tactics of overcoming contradictions and conflicts. Anyone who follows this tactic seeks to discover the cause of the contradiction, confrontation, confrontation and influence it, remove its severity, and resolve the conflict itself with the least losses for the conflicting parties. Force suppresses, suffocates, drives deep and, therefore, sharpens the contradictions even more. Non-violence unties the knot of unsolvable problems.

The idea of ​​reverence for life

Human life, considered as a biological, social, personal existence, is an opportunity (to a certain extent - an accident) provided by each fact of birth, the opportunity to go your own way, realize human potential, fulfill your duty, leave a mark in the field of your professional activity or just in memory people living nearby. Everyone has the opportunity to live his term so that his memory lives after him and would be kind and bright.

The ethics of reverence for life is a direction that arose in the 20th century. and is associated with the name of the greatest humanist of our time - Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965). Schweitzer's life is so interesting and unusual that it would be appropriate to recall some of the details of his biography.

“One sunny summer morning, when - and this was in 1896 - I woke up in Günsbach during the holidays on Whitsunday, the thought occurred to me that I did not dare to take this happiness for granted, but owed something for it. "Repay something. Pondering over this ... I came to the conclusion that it would be justified to live up to thirty years for the sake of the sciences and arts, in order to then devote oneself to the direct service of man." The writer of these lines at that time was twenty-three years old. Eight years later, he began to implement the decision. Schweitzer was lucky and talented, by the age of thirty he was an authoritative theologian, a famous organist, and a great future awaited him. But unexpectedly for everyone, a professor at the University of Strasbourg becomes a student and studies medicine for the next six years of his life - deeply and seriously, because he does not know how to do otherwise. It is difficult to say what caused more indignation and misunderstanding among friends and colleagues: the decision to change profession or intention, after completing their studies, leave Europe and go to work as a doctor in Africa. They tried to dissuade him, exhorted him, even tried to declare him crazy, but Schweitzer was firm. It is important to emphasize here that he did not act under the influence of a momentary mood and this was not an escape from himself, but was a path to himself. The system of views and the system of life were formed simultaneously. Schweitzer directly translated his own ethical theory into reality.

Thus began the life-feat, the life-legend of an ascetic and humanist, a religious man, but a sober-minded, obvious rationalist, more a pragmatist than a romantic, who felt the strength in himself to go his own way. Schweitzer was accused of individualism, of unwillingness to reckon with existing traditions in the relationship between people of different races. Equalizing people, asserting the equivalence of all human lives, he incurred the wrath of fellow Europeans. Few people were able to understand then the true meaning of Schweitzer's ascetic activity.

Let us now turn to the main ideas of Schweitzer's original ethical concept. Its fundamental principle is reverence for life in any form, the preservation of life, the alleviation of the suffering of the living. Spiritual life, according to Schweitzer, goes towards us in natural being. Reverence for life applies to both natural and spiritual phenomena, worship of natural life necessarily entails worship of spiritual life.

Schweitzer soberly assesses the paradoxical nature of his ethics: “They find it especially strange in the ethics of reverence for life that it does not emphasize the difference between higher and lower, more valuable and less valuable life. It has its own reasons to act in this way ... For a truly moral person all life is sacred, even that which, from our human point of view, seems inferior."

Thus, for Schweitzer, any life becomes an object of moral attitude - a person, nature, wildlife, microorganisms. It equalizes the moral value of all existing forms of life. Does it follow from this that the life of man and the life of an animal are of equal importance, and that the life of beings at the lowest stage of evolutionary development is equated with the life of those at the highest stage of development? Schweitzer not only does not lead us to this absurd conclusion, but also leads us away from it. He soberly and rationally describes the situation of moral choice, so well known to everyone. “Being together with all living beings under the influence of the law of self-dividing will to live, a person is increasingly in a position where he can save his life, as well as life in general, only at the expense of another life, if he is guided by the ethics of reverence for life, then he harms life and destroys it only under the pressure of necessity and never does it thoughtlessly. But where he is free to choose, man seeks a position in which he could help life and avert from it the threat of suffering and destruction ".

Schweitzer emphasizes the religious nature of his worldview, seeing clearly positive results of the interaction and interpenetration of Christian morality and the rationalistic way of understanding the world. The religiously oriented active ethics of love and spiritual self-deepening, according to Schweitzer, make the worldview of reverence for life akin to the Christian worldview. This creates the opportunity for Christianity and rational thought to enter into a more productive relationship with each other than has hitherto been possible.

It is noteworthy that Schweitzer does not idealize Christianity, does not overestimate its possibilities, he even reproaches Christianity for some duality and inconsistency. On the one hand, he says, Christianity for centuries preached the commandments of love and mercy, on the other hand, it did not rebel either against slavery, or against torture, or against the fires on which witches and heretics were burned. Modern Christianity, according to Schweitzer, is powerless in the fight against evil, in particular against the activities of state structures that degrade human dignity and encroach on human life itself. Christianity tries to adapt to the spirit of the times, strengthens its organizational structures, but with the achievement of external power, it loses its spiritual strength. Recall that Schweitzer was a deeply religious person, and it was probably not easy for him to discover and proclaim to the world this bitter truth.

Developing his idea of ​​altruism, Schweitzer acts as a strict rationalist, on the one hand, and as a subtle psychologist, on the other. He is aware of how difficult the fate of those who embarked on the path of implementing his theory, and tries to help his like-minded people, explaining its basic ideas and principles patiently, in detail and convincingly. One of the fundamental ones here is the idea of ​​self-renunciation as a means of active good-creative activity (namely, a means, not an end). Self-denial in the understanding of Schweitzer does not devalue a person as a person, does not rob him spiritually, but allows him to free himself from selfishness, bias and excessive subjectivism in evaluating other people's actions, from the desire to judge and condemn others, to pay for evil with evil, to take revenge, etc. Does it follow from this that there is no need to fight evil? Far from it, it is necessary to fight, but not by the means of evil, not by condemnation, not by revenge, but by stopping the spread of evil, and sometimes by simply excluding it from the zone of attention and moral assessment.

Schweitzer's idea of ​​the need for forgiveness is very interestingly argued. "Why do I forgive something to a person? Ordinary ethics says: because I feel compassion for him. It presents people in this forgiveness as too good and allows them to give a petition that is not free from the humiliation of another ... I must forgive everything without limit, for if I do not do this, I will be untrue towards myself and will act as if I am not as guilty as the other is towards me.Since my life is already so heavily stained with lies, I must forgive lies committed in relation to me. Since I myself do not love, hate, slander, show deceit and arrogance, I must forgive the dislike, hatred, slander, deceit, arrogance shown towards me. I must forgive quietly and imperceptibly. I I don’t forgive at all, I don’t bring it to that at all. But this is not exaltation, but a necessary extension and improvement of ordinary ethics.

Thus, Schweitzer interprets forgiveness as a means of preventing evil from entering the human soul. (Remember: “I don’t forgive at all, I don’t bring it to that.”) That is, he deliberately does not put himself in the place of the insulted, deceived, hated, although he admits that slander, hatred, lies, etc. d. He takes himself out of the situation, and the situation itself, where the attitude towards him is clearly negative, deliberately does not make the object of moral assessment. He allows himself to neglect evil, and in this way, evil, as it were, cancels, even excludes. This method of preventing evil allows a person to be saved from the torment of moral choice, the need to justify (even for himself) the need for forgiveness.

Schweitzer constantly shifts the usual accents. It shifts our attention from evil to good and fixes the latter in our minds. He does not condemn inaction, but actively supports any action aimed at preserving life. He generally does not condemn anyone for anything (for the same reason that he "does not forgive" - ​​he does not allow himself to be condemned). Psychologically, he thinks and acts very correctly, fixing positive moments in the mind of a person and, as it were, not noticing (and thus denying) the negative ones. He seems to want to tell us: yes, there is evil, but is it worth talking about it, is it worth spending your life on such a useless occupation and isn’t it better to devote it to the active creation of good?

We will not find in Schweitzer anything resembling moral regulation, but we will find a clear definition of the purpose and direction of life activity. "The ethics of reverence for life makes us feel an infinitely great responsibility ... It does not give us a ready-made recipe for permitted self-preservation, it orders us to polemicize in each individual case with the absolute ethics of self-denial. In accordance with the responsibility that I feel, I must decide that I must sacrifice of my life, my property, my right, my happiness, my time, my peace, and what I must keep for myself." At the same time, Schweitzer believes that it is not necessary to praise or condemn people if they feel free from the duty of self-denial for the sake of other people. Everyone has the right to choose their own path and go through it.

Schweitzer considered his ethics a program of individual action, direct service to people, believed that it encourages people to show interest in others and give them a particle of their life, love, participation, kindness. In this, Schweitzer sees the duty of every person, regardless of his professional affiliation and social status, and a convinced humanist, doctor and philosopher devoted his own life to this service.

"True ethics begins where the use of words ceases." In this statement of Schweitzer, short and capacious as a formula, there is a deep meaning: the ethics of reverence for life is more practice than theory, it has a clearly expressed orientation towards active purposeful action, the purpose of which is the preservation of all existing forms of life, selfless service to man. What other moralists only called for, Schweitzer chose his life's work. His rationalism, his will, his knowledge and moral orientation concentrated on one concrete matter and produced unprecedented results. Fate endowed him with longevity - Schweitzer lived for ninety years - and not even half of his life, as he expected, but gave two-thirds of it to the implementation of his ethical system.

Albert Schweitzer, who passed away in the mid-60s, was a Nobel Peace Prize winner, a humanist, is our contemporary. His ideas, his work are alive to this day, the medical institutions he created in Lambarin continue to work for the benefit of people. A person of this magnitude can be called a phenomenon of European culture.

A LITTLE PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT

Moral consciousness, like consciousness in general, is a complex multi-level and polystructural system.

From our point of view, two levels can be distinguished in the structure of moral consciousness: everyday and theoretical, which are unjustifiably opposed, because, rising to the level of theoretical consciousness, a person does not leave his feelings at his doorstep, they also rise to a new level, being transformed in this movement. . The significance of everyday moral consciousness in people's lives is also confirmed by the fact that throughout history the vast majority of people in their moral life were limited by the level of everyday consciousness, about which A. Labriola quite accurately and figuratively said: "The entire human race, in essence speaking, throughout its development never had the time or opportunity to go to the school of Plato or Owen, Pestalozzi or Herbart. He acted as he was forced to act "

However, being interconnected, the ordinary and theoretical levels of moral consciousness also have their own differences, one of which lies in the depth of reflection of moral phenomena. At the ordinary level, people operate mainly with empirically perceived givens and are unable to comprehend the depth and essence of certain phenomena of social life.

The ordinary level of moral consciousness can be defined as a way of mastering the world, presented in the form of moral norms, assessments, customs, reflecting everyday, day-to-day repetitive relationships between people.

Theoretical - as a way of mastering the world, presented in the form of moral concepts, concepts, reflecting global moral problems.

An analysis of modern scientific literature shows that today there is no consensus regarding the structure of moral consciousness.

First, in the works available on this issue, only its individual elements are studied; secondly, there is no scientific rigor in attributing these elements to the ordinary or theoretical level of moral consciousness; thirdly, there is often an identification of individual elements in the structure of moral consciousness.

All this does not give a sufficiently complete picture of both the moral consciousness as a whole and its structure, studying which A.I. Titarenko noted quite accurately: "The structure of moral consciousness is not only a system of levels, but it is an integrity where everything is interconnected and where each element receives meaning only in a special connection with other elements."

Following this position, and also proceeding from a concrete historical approach in the study of moral consciousness, the analysis of this complex phenomenon should begin from the ordinary level.

The ordinary level of moral consciousness can be represented by such structural components as customs, traditions, norms and assessments.

Custom- this is a stable element of everyday moral consciousness, reflecting reality in the form of a system of repetitive actions, regulating social relations from the standpoint of good and evil in the non-productive sphere, based on the power of public opinion, closely connected with the ritual.

Tradition- it is a historically established strong and durable element of ordinary moral consciousness, actively reflecting social life in its various areas, directing human behavior towards the development and strengthening of humane moral relations between people, closely connected with the emotional side of his activity.

moral norm- this is a structural element of moral consciousness, which is a kind of measure of permissible and mandatory options for people's behavior, on the basis of which the regulation of the activities and relations of individuals is carried out from the position of good and evil.

Moral assessment- this is a structural element of moral consciousness, with the help of which the conformity or inconsistency of human behavior with moral norms is established.

All the structural elements presented above are closely interconnected, but the basis of this level is moral norms, since with the help of them it becomes possible to coordinate the interests of people, organize the process of communication, preserve and reproduce that minimum of humanity in relations, without which the interaction of subjects of communication is inconceivable.

A higher degree of abstraction is inherent in theoretical moral consciousness, which is determined by G.G. Akmambetov as "a system about what is due, about the ideal, about the meaning of life". In my opinion, this definition is incomplete, since the author, having indicated in this definition the structural composition of theoretical moral consciousness, did not single out its basic components - values ​​and value orientations, which are a cementing principle that unites other elements of moral consciousness into a single whole, expressing it. essence, ensuring the imperative unity of the entire structure of moral consciousness.

The integrative role of value orientations is noted by such researchers as A.G. Zdravomyslov and V.A. Poisons, who believe that value orientations are "that component of the structure of the consciousness of the individual, which is a certain axis of consciousness around which the thoughts and feelings of a person revolve and from the point of view of which many life issues are resolved."

As a central element of moral consciousness, A.I. Titarenko, who believes that they most adequately reflect the essence of this phenomenon, and gives them the following definition: "Value orientations are stable, invariant, in a certain way coordinated formations ("units") of moral consciousness - its main ideas, concepts, "value blocks "expressing the essence of the moral meaning of human existence, and indirectly - the most general cultural and historical conditions and perspectives."

The legitimacy of highlighting values ​​and value orientations as the basic elements of moral consciousness is explained, in my opinion, by the fact that, firstly, they express the general evaluative-imperative aspiration of people's consciousness to achieve certain goals. As T.I. Porokhovskaya, "value orientations are elements of the structure of a person's consciousness that characterize the content side of its orientation. In the form of value orientations, as a result of the assimilation of value values ​​in the process of socialization, the essential, the most important for a person, is fixed."

History knows people who subordinated all their thoughts, hopes, feelings to one lofty goal: the liberation of their homeland from a foreign yoke (D. Donskoy, Zh.D. Ark, K. Minin, D. Pozharsky, B. Khmelnitsky, D. Garibaldi and others), alleviating the suffering of the sick (R. Koch, A. Schweitzer and others), educating the younger generation (J. Korchak, V. Sukhomlinsky and others). The purposefulness of the whole life of these people clearly speaks of the moral values ​​that permeated their spiritual world. This goal can be considered as the highest, subordinating will and feelings of these individuals, which has become their value orientation.

Secondly, values ​​and value orientations absorb the system of personal meanings reflected by the subject of the world, as evidenced by the concept of "value-semantic sphere of personality" used in psychology.

Values ​​represent all the meanings that are significant for a person, but the most global of them is the meaning of life, the essence of which lies in the attitude of the individual to himself and society, to understanding his place in society and to understanding the social significance of his activity. This or that understanding of the meaning of life determines the whole line of human behavior and is the moral core on which his moral attitudes are "attached". Under the "meaning of life" it is customary to understand people's awareness of the main content of all activities (past, present, future), which determines their place and significance in the life of society.

A person needs to be sure that individual life is necessary for himself, for people, and for society. A correct understanding of the meaning of life by a person gives him such moral strength, which helps in overcoming life's difficulties. For a person, not only the result of his activity is of interest, but also the activity itself, the need for it.

Another example is the drama of Rodion Raskolnikov, who built an image of himself based on an intellectually grounded idea of ​​superiority. However, this image could not withstand the collision with life and led not only to the collapse of the enterprise conceived by this literary character, but also to a semantic collapse.

Many people today see the meaning of life in interesting work, in raising children, in well-being, in the humanization of social relations, in building a truly democratic state, whose activities would be aimed at creating conditions for the harmonious development of a person, as evidenced by sociological research data.

Thus, sharing the position of D.A. Leontiev, it can be argued that the life of any person objectively makes sense, since it is striving for something, although this is not always realized by a person.

Thirdly, values ​​and value orientations are the link between moral consciousness and human behavior. According to AI Titarenko, value orientations are such elements of moral consciousness that are actually reproduced, objectified in actions and relationships. They are closely connected with the needs and interests of the individual, with the emotional-volitional mechanisms of his psyche. This feature of value orientations is noted by such researchers as D.N. Uznadze, S.L. Rubinstein, V.N. Myasishchev, G.Kh. Shingarov, who were among the first to study this phenomenon, which is described in psychology through the concepts of "attitude", "social orientation", "attitude".

So, in the theory of installation D.N. Uznadze, although the concept of "value orientation" is not used, the content of this concept can be explained in terms of this theory as an integral dynamic state, a certain psychological readiness of the individual to evaluate the objects and phenomena of reality, which lead the individual to the active mastery of these phenomena in the process of social value activity.

The connection between value orientations and needs is also indicated by the researcher V.A. Zlotnikov: "Value orientation can be regarded as one of the manifestations, expressions of needs... By the value orientations of a person, one can judge the system of his needs."

Speaking about the psychological aspect of values ​​and value orientations, it should be noted that these structural elements of moral consciousness are organically included in the composition of motives and incentives for all types and forms of activity of subjects, determining its direction.

We must agree with V.A. Yadov that the inclusion of value orientations in the structure of moral consciousness "allows us to grasp the most common social determinants of behavior motivation, the origins of which should be sought in the socio-economic nature of society and the environment in which the personality was formed, and where the daily life of a person takes place." By assimilating the values ​​of his environment and turning them into value orientations, the motivational forces of his behavior, a person becomes an active subject of social activity.

So, values ​​and value orientations can be presented as the basic elements of moral consciousness, linking together not only elements of theoretical moral consciousness, but also ordinary, since the boundary between these two levels is very flexible, and such structural elements as assessments and norms, as well as the values ​​themselves can be formed both spontaneously (at the level of everyday consciousness) and developed consciously (at the theoretical level in a systematic and logically demonstrative form).

Expressing the purposefulness of moral consciousness, its system of meanings, values ​​and value orientations, being closely related to motives and needs, contribute to the manifestation of human consciousness in activities, behavior and relationships with other people.

Values ​​and value orientations are inextricably linked, which is confirmed, for example, by the characterization of value orientations as "an individual's orientation towards certain values", given by B.G. Ananiev. This definition emphasizes two very important properties of value orientations: firstly, their connection with the world of human values; secondly, belonging not just to consciousness, but also to the behavior of the individual, in other words, their practically effective character.

Let's turn to the concept of "value". Value is usually understood as an object, a phenomenon of the material or spiritual culture of mankind, which has acquired a stable meaning for the individual, since it serves or could serve as a means of satisfying its needs, achieving its main goals. A short but very capacious definition of this phenomenon is given by J. Gudecek: "Values ​​are a part of the individual's consciousness, and at the same time that part of it, without which there is no personality."

We have given definitions of the concept of "value", but in the context of our study we are interested in "moral value", which exists and is interpreted in two ways. Firstly, these are objectively existing moral norms, principles, ideals, concepts of good and evil, justice, happiness, formed by concrete historical and social experience of mankind. Secondly, a moral value can act as a personal phenomenon, as a personified attitude of a person to social moral values, their acceptance, non-acceptance, etc.

Among other values, many researchers (V.A. Blyumkin, D.A. Leontiev, T.I. Porokhovskaya, A.I. Titarenko, etc.) put moral values ​​in the category of higher ones.

But what is the criterion for such an assessment? V.A. Blumkin proposes, for example, to proceed from taking into account the structure of human needs and interests when building a hierarchy of values. “Obviously,” he writes, “the highest values ​​are those that correspond to the highest, most important human needs, without the satisfaction of which happiness and the very existence of people are impossible. The most essential characteristics of a person are expressed by his highest needs for work, creativity, communication, knowledge, beauty and goodness. These higher needs also correspond to higher values: the good of man and mankind, justice, altruism, selflessness, gratitude, honor, conscience. All other values ​​(material and spiritual wealth) can be considered as means, as conditions for achieving higher values ​​" .

So what is "moral value"? By this phenomenon, we understand the integral formation of moral consciousness, which includes moral norms, assessments, concepts, principles, ideals, closely related to the motives and needs of the individual, ensuring the orientation of his consciousness to achieve higher moral goals, performing the functions of evaluating, regulating human behavior on basis of good and evil.

Structural elements of moral values ​​constitute a certain hierarchy. Historically and ontologically, a person's ascent to the pinnacle of his moral development occurred gradually: from the introduction of an individual to the moral norms of society, the formation of value judgments on their basis, then more complex semantic formations (moral concepts, principles) to the development of a moral ideal as the most generalized worldview concept that absorbed into itself all the best that has been developed by morality at a given stage of its development and presented in one person.

It should be noted that the structural elements are mobile, developing or regressing, they can change their position in the system. So, for example, the principle of class honor, widespread in the moral consciousness of the epoch of feudalism, gradually lost its meaning, this principle was transformed into a private moral norm, which sounds something like this: "the position obliges." On the other hand, the moral norm "do not be lazy" gradually acquired the status of the principle of diligence.

Let us now turn to the analysis of structural elements.

The value character of moral norms is clearly traced already in their definition: "Moral norms are a stable, established in the public consciousness arrangement of nodal moral values ​​...". In moral standards, according to the fair remark of V.A. Vasilenko, "the value structure of a certain type of actions and relations is modeled".

The value basis of moral norms is that they contain information about right and wrong, about good and evil, guided by which a person chooses the best option for moral behavior. By setting a certain measure, a framework for individual behavior, norms contribute to the ordering of human relations. Universal moral norms are characterized by a special depth of value content: do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, do not envy, help the weak, defenseless, etc.

Being an integral part of moral values, moral norms are distinguished by the fact that the obligation that forms their basis contains the prerequisites for their voluntary recognition as a person, the possibility of freedom to choose the necessary line of behavior.

The next element in the hierarchy of values ​​is moral assessment, which can be objective and subjective. The objective side of the assessment is determined by social practice and abstract meanings, the subjective side - by the needs and interests of the subject of the assessment, which are of a very different nature. In this regard, this or that value can be reflected in the assessment with varying degrees of adequacy. In the process of evaluation, the meaning of values ​​can be very significantly transformed, distorted.

As T.I. Porokhovskaya, "the evaluation process consists in correlating two types of information: knowledge about the subject of assessment and knowledge about the subject of assessment, its needs and interests. On the one hand, the subject itself can be reflected with a greater or lesser degree of completeness, on the other hand, needs and interests can be also reflected inadequately, subjectively, biased.

Thus, the inconsistency of assessments with values ​​is expressed in the incompleteness, inadequacy of the reflection of either the object of assessment, or needs and interests, or both at the same time. However, the specificity of assessments is not in this: with the same degree of completeness of reflection, assessments for different people can be different and even mutually exclusive. It depends on the individuality of the subject of assessment, his life experience, his needs and interests.

Deserving attention, in my opinion, the scale of evaluation of the value system was proposed by J. Gudechek. The first scale is represented by assessments, which include the active attitude of the subject to the system of values, which is expressed in a high degree of internalization of values. The second - assessments expressing a person's conformist attitude to values, which is characterized by his external adaptation to moral values ​​without their internalization. The third scale consists of assessments in which the subject's indifference to the value system is manifested, expressed in his indifference, indifference, passivity, and lack of interest in moral values. In the fourth scale - negative assessments, through which the individual's disagreement with the value system, its criticism, the desire to change it is manifested. The fifth scale is represented by assessments, which express the active opposition of the subject to the value system, based on its internal and external denial.

Thus, through moral assessments, on the one hand, the subject's attitude to the existing system of values ​​is expressed, and on the other hand, the ability to determine the value of actions, the behavior of an individual, their compliance with moral norms, principles, ideals.

The next step of the "value pyramid" is occupied by moral concepts, which represent the highest level of generalization, which include good and evil, justice, happiness, the meaning of life, etc. The concepts under consideration have been developed over the centuries in the joint life of people as a manifestation of certain aspects of moral common and widespread. Good and evil became one of the first formed theoretical concepts of public moral consciousness. These value concepts of moral consciousness are a form of reflection of the interaction and relationships between people and are historically changeable. Through the concept of "good" the value of an act can be revealed; "good" can be considered as a moral goal of behavior, and in this case it acts as a motive for an act; finally, "good" (virtue) can also be a moral quality of a person.

Such an ambiguous definition of the concept of "good" follows from the very nature of morality, which permeates all aspects of human life. Good, as you know, is always opposed by evil, which is confirmed by folk wisdom: "There is no evil without good," as well as the saying of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus: "Both good and evil are one."

Good and evil are closely related to other moral concepts - happiness, conscience, duty cannot be adequately understood and, moreover, cannot become relevant principles of behavior if a person does not have a correct understanding of good and evil.

Despite the historically changeable nature of the concepts of good and evil, their essence lies in the fact that under "good" at any time and era they understood what is considered moral, worthy of imitation, and under "evil" - the opposite meaning: immoral, worthy of condemnation. People's actions are evaluated as good if they are in accordance with the moral standards of society, and as evil if they contradict these standards.

Another value concept, which is of a general nature, is justice. In this concept, according to a very precise remark by M.N. Rutkevich, "a moral idea is fixed about what corresponds and what does not correspond to the morality prevailing in society, what deserves moral recognition and what does not."

Interesting, in our opinion, is the definition of the concept of "justice", given by Z.A. Berbeshkina: "This is the concept of moral consciousness, which characterizes the degree of influence and demands of the rights and benefits of an individual or a social community, the degree of exactingness to an individual, society, the legitimacy of assessing the economic, political, moral phenomena of reality and the actions of people from the position of a certain class or society." In this definition, the author highlights the imperative orientation of the concept of "justice", which is generally characteristic of moral consciousness.

By means of this concept, people determine the value of certain phenomena of social life, decisions made that affect their fundamental interests. The facts of social injustice, if they are repeated often, lead to disappointment, loss of faith in the rationality of the existing reality. With the concept of "justice" people associate such a structure of society, which affirms the equality of nations, the equality of citizens before the law, creates conditions for the harmonious development of the individual, and provides him with broad social guarantees. As you can see, this concept has a pronounced value aspect.

The concept of "happiness" is especially significant for a person. Among the many definitions of this phenomenon, we chose the one that emphasizes its connection with the concept of "value". "Happiness is a value, a measure of goodness in a person's life, an ideal of the perfection of the individual and being in general."

Describing the concept of "happiness", it should be noted that in it, as in almost all other elements of moral consciousness, one can single out personal and social aspects. By "public happiness" is meant the good of large masses of the people. In this sense, we can talk about the happiness of the people of any state, country and planet as a whole. And it is most often associated with the absence of wars, environmental disasters, epidemics, etc., that is, with the exclusion of everything that threatens humanity. In the personal aspect, “happiness” is most often understood as satisfaction with life in general.

From a psychological point of view, happiness is seen as life satisfaction, pleasant affects, the absence of noticeable troubles that could suppress a person’s positive mood. We believe that "happiness" incorporates such characteristics as variability, continuous development and movement as the person himself improves. It is connected with the activities of people in the name of the realization of dreams and goals, in the name of setting ever more complex tasks. In such a movement one realizes and feels the joy and fullness of human life.

It is known that in order for life to satisfy, it must have meaning, and this happens when it is illuminated by certain goals, therefore the concept of "happiness", considered as the highest goal, is directly related to the concept of "meaning of life". The meaning of life and happiness do not lie in passive contemplation and contentment with the objective world, but in its transformation in accordance with developing needs, in activity. Aristotle once drew attention to this feature of the concept of "happiness", who believed that happiness is most fully revealed in activities that are consistent with the highest virtue of the soul, and is associated with participation in the life of the state, and not in bodily pleasures, entertainment, idle pastime. According to Aristotle, people can be happy through learning and diligence. So, in the concept of "happiness" we have considered, its value aspect is clearly traced. The objective basis of happiness is the universal good, which is the product of this phenomenon in general as a universal form of thinking.

The core of the system of moral values, according to T.I. Porokhovskaya, constitute moral principles through which the essence of the moral system of society, its socio-historical meaning is revealed. They arise when there is a need for a more flexible and universal guidance for a person, which has both ideological and everyday regulatory significance, moreover, in the most ordinary situation. Moral principles are broadly formed normative prescriptions, fundamental "beginnings", essential laws. On the one hand, they fix the essence, "purpose" of a person, reveal to him the meaning and the general goal of his diverse actions, and on the other hand, they are guidelines for developing specific decisions for every day.

In principles, unlike norms, no ready-made models and patterns of behavior are set, but only a general direction of behavior is given. A person, guided by moral principles, firstly, independently decides how to act in a particular situation; secondly, he thinks about the need to follow moral standards, that is, he treats the latter reflexively and critically (decides how legitimate the norms existing in society are). In moral principles, thus, an increased degree of independence, moral freedom of the individual is fixed. They also contain elements of the universal, and the experience of many generations is consolidated. " moral principle, as L.V. Skvortsov, is not one or another random thought that occurred to an individual, but a recognized form of affirming a given social structure, given social orders as necessary, as those in which the individual's own life and positive activity are possible. This is their core value."

The highest level in the value hierarchy is occupied by the moral ideal as a value that is especially significant for a person. The moral ideal embodies the desire of a person for perfection, stimulating his will, abilities, strength and directing him to practical actions in the name of its realization. In the moral consciousness, the ideal is formed as an expression of the desire for change for the better, hope for them (interest in a more just structure of society, in the triumph of good over evil). Under moral ideal understand "ideas of moral perfection, most often expressed in the image of a person who embodied such moral qualities that can serve as the highest moral model." In the human mind, the moral ideal performs two very important functions. First, it allows the individual to evaluate the behavior of other people; secondly, it plays the role of a guideline in the moral self-improvement of the individual. The presence of a formed ideal in a person says a lot: that the individual consciously treats himself as a moral person, about his purposefulness, moral maturity. The absence of an ideal usually characterizes people who do not think about their moral perfection. However, not only the presence of a moral ideal in a person is important, but also its content. There are many examples in life when a different "ideal" contributes not to the development and elevation of the personality in moral terms, but to its impoverishment, and sometimes degradation. Such an ideal cannot be moral in the full sense of the word. According to the content of ideals, one can judge not only about an individual, but also about society as a whole. If a society creates conditions for the formation of attractive ideals, then we can say that it develops in a progressive direction, and vice versa, if a society offers some pathetic ersatz instead of an ideal, then we can say about such a society that it loses its moral authority.

So, values-norms, values-assessments, values-concepts, values-principles, values-ideals presented in the value hierarchy have a number of distinctive features: firstly, they play the role of motivation to achieve the goal; secondly, they contain universal principles; thirdly, they give meaning to human behavior and actions, while regulating them.

Consideration of moral values ​​allows us to proceed to the disclosure of the content of value orientations, which can be represented as a unity of emotional, cognitive and behavioral elements. In the process of developing value orientations, first of all, an emotional experience, an emotional evaluation of a person's value, occurs. This is the first most direct and intuitive connection of the individual with the new phenomenon of reality, and in the process of establishing this connection, the attitudes, needs, and motives of the individual are actualized.

The formation of value orientations also presupposes rational evaluation associated with a person's awareness of motives, motives for actions, which forms the basis of the cognitive element of value orientations.

In the structure of value orientations, an important place belongs to the behavioral element, which is a "practical expression" of value orientations, taking into account the "real possibilities" of a person in this activity. Its implementation can be traced on the example of the moral activity of the subject, which, in our opinion, should occupy a leading place among other forms of social activity, since, as T.N. Malkovskaya, it is "moral values ​​... that determine the direction of all forms of social activity."

However, in the literature, the concept of "moral activity" is extremely rare, and the term itself is practically not used. One of the few researchers of this phenomenon, N.D. Zotov, writes: "Moral activity can be regarded as a specific activity of consciousness and will, aimed at the practical implementation of moral requirements emanating from society." Describing a morally active person, N.D. Zotov notes that "this is a person who most often performs moral actions, is more stable than others, follows the requirements of duty, a person who tests his life path with the ideals of goodness."

Such a statement seems to us fair, but only on the condition that the "others" with whom the comparison is being made are sufficiently moral in themselves. In addition, here we are talking about a mature personality, while moral activity is formed for a long time and in stages.

In preschool and primary school age, the foundation of morality is laid, the universal minimum of moral norms is assimilated. It is also a sensitive period for the formation of moral feelings. And it is the strength and depth of these feelings, their influence on the behavior of the child, on his attitude to people, to nature, to the results of human labor, that determine the measure of moral activity.

Adolescents are already rising to the level of awareness of moral requirements, the formation of ideas about moral values, the development of the ability for moral assessment. Intensive communication is the basis for the "training" of moral behavior.

In early youth, a person develops moral ideas of a worldview level: about the meaning of life, about happiness, about a person as the highest value, an individual becomes able to independently make a moral choice.

We believe that moral activity can be considered as one of the leading criteria for the level of development of a person's moral consciousness. moral activity can be defined, in our opinion, as such an active moral attitude of a person to the world, to other people, in which the subject acts as an active carrier and "conductor" of moral values ​​(norms, principles, ideals), capable of sustainable moral behavior and self-improvement, responsibly suitable for making moral decisions, uncompromisingly related to immoral manifestations, openly expressing his moral position.

So, the consideration of moral activity allows us to most fully reveal the behavioral element of the structure of value orientations, the latter, in turn, play an important role in the formation of moral activity, determining its direction, content, forms of expression, goals and means of moral self-improvement of the individual.

Value orientations as elements of moral consciousness perform a number of functions. Researcher E.V. Sokolov distinguishes the following most important functions of value orientations: expressive, contributing to the self-affirmation and self-expression of the individual. A person seeks to pass on the accepted values ​​to others, to achieve recognition, success; adaptive expressing the ability of the individual to satisfy his basic needs in the ways and through the values ​​that this society has; protection personalities - value orientations act as a kind of "filters", passing only that information that does not require a significant restructuring of the entire personality system; cognitive, aimed at objects and the search for information necessary to maintain the internal integrity of the individual; coordination internal mental life, harmonization of mental processes, their coordination in time and in relation to the conditions of activity.

CONCLUSION

Thus, in the value-semantic formations of moral consciousness, we see, on the one hand, those forms in which the moral significance of social phenomena is systematized, encoded, and, on the other hand, those guidelines of behavior that determine its direction and act as the ultimate foundations of moral assessments.

Awareness of the need to implement a certain system of values ​​in one's behavior and thereby awareness of oneself as the subject of the historical process, the creator of "proper" moral relations becomes a source of self-respect, dignity and social activity of the individual. On the basis of the established value orientations, self-regulation of activity is carried out, which consists in the ability of a person to consciously solve the tasks facing him, to make a free choice of decisions, to assert certain social and moral values ​​by his activity. The realization of values ​​in this case is perceived by the individual as moral, civil, professional, etc. debt, the avoidance of which is prevented, first of all, by the mechanism of internal self-control, conscience.

A feature of the value system of public moral consciousness is that it reflects not only the current state of society, but also the past and the desired future of its state. Target values, ideals are projected onto this hierarchy, as a result of which it is corrected. Under the influence of specific historical conditions, the system, the hierarchy of values, is rebuilt.

Changes in the value structure of moral consciousness are, first of all, a change in the leading, basic value orientation, which sets the normative certainty of such value-worldview ideas as the meaning of life, the purpose of a person, the moral ideal, etc., which plays the role of an "axiological spring", transmitting its activity to all other parts of the system.

The public need for a new type of moral consciousness appears when the former supreme value orientation does not meet the requirements of the changed historical reality, turns out to be unable to perform its inherent functions, values ​​do not become people's beliefs, the latter in their moral choice less and less appeal to them, that is, alienation of individuals occurs. From these moral values, a situation of value vacuum arises, giving rise to spiritual cynicism, undermining mutual understanding and integration of people.

The new leading value orientation, acting as an alternative to the previous one, can not only rebuild the system of moral values, but also change the strength of their motivational impact. As domestic psychologists D.N. Uznadze, F.V. Bassin, A.E. Sheroziya and others, the restructuring of the system of value orientations, the change in subordination between values ​​testify to profound transformations in the semantic picture of the surrounding world, a change in the semantic characteristics of its various elements.

So, value orientation- this is a basic element of moral consciousness, providing a general direction for the behavior of individuals, a socially significant choice by them of goals, values, ways of regulating behavior, its forms and style.

Values ​​and value orientations, being the core of public moral consciousness, around which both elements of the theoretical and everyday levels are united, play an integrative role in the organization of the entire system.

Moral consciousness is represented by two levels: everyday and theoretical, the boundaries between which are mobile, so that individual structural elements (norms, assessments, concepts) can function at both levels. More stable structural elements of ordinary moral consciousness are customs and traditions, and theoretical - ideals. Values ​​and value orientations act as an integrative principle that unites all elements together.

So, the analysis of the structure of moral consciousness allows us to conclude that this complex systemic formation is represented by many elements, most of which are quite mobile, so that their assignment to the ordinary or theoretical levels is rather arbitrary.

The presented structural elements, being closely related to each other, at the same time have their own distinctive features, which, however, does not exclude the performance by each of them to one degree or another of the main function of moral consciousness - the regulation of people's behavior in society.

Bibliography

Berdyaev N.A. Philosophy of the free spirit. - M., 1994.

Gurevich P.S. Philosophy of man. - M., 1999.

Gurevich P.S., Shokuev K.B. Philosophical anthropology. Nalchik, 1996.

Dialogue Toynbee - Ikeda. A person must choose for himself. - M., 1998.

Kuvakin V.A. Your heaven and hell: Humanity and inhumanity of man. SPb., - M., 1998.

Smirnov I. Man to man is a philosopher. SPb., 1999.

Stolovich L.N. The beauty. Good. True. - M., 1994.

Frank S.L. Reality and man. - M., 1997.

Frankl V. Man in search of meaning. - M., 1990.

Fromm E. Dogma about Christ. - M., 1998.

Akmambetov G.G. Moral culture and personality. Alma-Ata, 1988.

Schweitzer A. Reverence for life. - M., 1992.

Yadov V.A. Regulation and self-regulation of the social behavior of the individual: problem statement // Self-regulation and forecasting of the social behavior of the individual. - M., 1979.

moral value. So, for example, in a relationship characterized by ...

1. Moral upbringing as the most important factor in personality formation

   Abstract >> Psychology

   As children age, elements are laid morality: initial moral feelings and ideas, the simplest ones are developed ...: it is necessary to assimilate not only high moral values, ideals and principles, but also the organization of its own ...

2. The role of television as a means of shaping the spiritual moral values junior schoolchildren

   Abstract >> Sociology

   As a means of forming spiritual moral values junior schoolchildren…………………………………………. 2.2. Television as ... the formation of spiritual moral values. 2. To identify the influence of television on the formation of spiritual moral values and describe...

3. Moral education of schoolchildren

   Report >> Pedagogy

   life; activities; Formation moral qualities; Formation of awareness in students moral values, orientations, settings. ... grade. Humanity is conditional moral regulations and values a system of personality attitudes to social ...

Introduction

Moral values ​​and their role in human life. Freedom and responsibility

The concept of aesthetic. Goodness and beauty in the spiritual experience of modern man

Religion and its role in the modern world

Conclusion

List of used literature

Introduction

Since the formation of society, moral values ​​began to exist. They determined the life of a person, his position and relations in the community.

Freedom for a person did not belong to him at all, there were periods when for centuries a person remained in bondage. And in our time, a person depends on the laws, the foundations of society and traditions. He must be responsible for his actions, because if he does not realize what he has done, this will lead to consequences that he will regret.

How wonderful it would be if goodness and beauty went hand in hand, but these days this is not always the case.

Religion, just like in ancient times, is of great importance in the modern world. It unites millions of people, gives them hope in difficult times, and forms the moral norms of people's behavior. But there is also a negative aspect: against the background of religious differences, conflicts arise between people of different faiths.

1. Moral values ​​and their role in human life. Freedom and responsibility

The most important philosophical issues under the jurisdiction of philosophical anthropology also include the spiritual life of man and those basic values ​​that underlie his existence.

The values ​​that ensure human life are health and safety, material wealth, relations in society that contribute to the self-realization of the individual and the freedom of her choice. The moral values ​​of a person are a set of rules and norms of behavior in society.

The rules of morality were contained in the mythological and religious systems of any society. And moral values ​​were inextricably linked with religious systems.

In antiquity, independent ethical teachings appeared, outside the religious and mythological systems, the most important of which are ethical rationalism, hedonism and stoicism. Ethical rationalism proceeds from the fact that it is enough for a person to know what is good and what is evil in order for him to act morally. Non-moral behavior is treated as ignorance

Hedonistic ethics presents the desire for pleasure as the meaning of human life. In ancient philosophy, it is represented by the teachings of Epicurus. In everyday language, we use the name "cynics" for those who disregard moral values. "Cynics", or cynics, in ancient philosophy called the philosophical school, whose representatives questioned the moral rules of behavior. Stoicism is a doctrine whose followers preached contempt for wealth and fame, taught indifference to fate and perseverance. Christianity proposed a system of moral values ​​based on the gospel story, where the main value is the love of God and "the preparation of the soul for eternal life. In the Renaissance, a humanism as a philosophical and ethical system that represents a person and his creative self-realization as the highest value.

In the XVIII century. The idea that the main category of morality is duty was developed by Emmanuel Kant. He formulated the "categorical imperative" - ​​the moral law to which all people must obey: "Act in such a way that the maxim of your behavior at any time could also be the norm of universal legislation."

Moral values ​​play a huge role in human life. For example, having promised something to someone, it is impossible not to fulfill the promise. in the eyes of this person, you become an unreliable person who cannot be relied upon, and this is contrary to moral values.

Relatives, friends, relatives and those who surround us - this is society. And therefore, we need to cherish their love, trust, and friendship, and without observing at least the basic moral rules of behavior, we simply cannot exist.

The most important condition for the morality of the individual is his freedom, the possibility of moral self-determination. Without this, morality, as a special mechanism for regulating human relations, is out of the question. If we do not choose anything of our own free will, we are not free. However, in full growth, the theme of freedom as a choice becomes in Christianity, which connects with the free decision of a person his movement along the path of good or evil. Christianity proceeds from the fact that the will of a person is free, that is, she herself makes a choice, not being a simple consequence of some determinant reasons. A person can either accept the hand of Christ extended to him, or evade divine help and support, choosing a different path.

If we reject the mechanistic understanding of sociocultural laws, in which human life is a rigid chain of links tightly connected to each other, then it will be found that the laws of society and everyday life are laws-trends. They are statistical, that is, they act only on a large array of events and situations. At the level of both being and everyday life, probabilistic relations dominate, which, within the framework of a trend, make it possible to choose. Almost every everyday situation has a number of alternatives, and a person is free to prefer this or that way of behavior, this or that assessment. Free will from the possibility of choice can and must move into the reality of choice - to be embodied in an act, in a position, in a manner of behavior.

The human will has the ability to freely choose one or another position, but this depends on some conditions:

Condition 1. To implement free choice, there must be no external coercion and prohibition. If a person is in the truest sense of the word chained, under direct threat of death, fundamentally limited in his abilities and cannot act at his own discretion - he does not choose and is not free, at least in practical terms.

Condition 2. In order for a free choice to take place, consciousness and reflection are needed, the ability to see the available options and stop at one of them. In my opinion, awareness is a necessary moment of free choice, its irremovable attribute. If a person chooses spontaneously, according to the principle “I cannot do otherwise”, then in 99% of cases his choice will be erroneous and will not bring him anything good.

It happens that a person is not able to decide what value to choose, and then he wants to abandon the decision. Eliminate. "Get to the bottom." Leave the problem to others. However, this means that even the absence of a choice is a choice. Doing nothing is also an act.

Not to help - keep silent, close your eyes - this is also a free decision. To no lesser extent, this provision applies to the choice between equal values. If you didn’t choose, it means that someone chose for you, and people most often know who can solve the issue “for them” and in what way. Therefore, avoiding choice is nothing more than self-deception.

Responsibility is the other side of freedom, its « alterego » - the second "I". Responsibility is inextricably linked with freedom and always accompanies it. The one who acts freely is fully responsible for what he has done.

Behave Responsibly- means to be able to actively act from your place, act according to the logic of events, understanding and realizing how your actions will respond to you and others. This means to foresee (feel, grasp) the consequences of each step and strive to prevent a possible negative course of events. Responsible behavior in this sense is reasonable and prudent behavior in the good sense of the word - the behavior of someone who cares about what will happen to him and others. Responsibility also means the ability to correctly understand the needs of both others and your own. We behave responsibly towards others when we respect their personalities, we strive to help when asking for help, to support if necessary, when we affirm their existence and contribute to their development. Indifference, as well as an attempt to “break another over the knee”, is always an irresponsible attitude towards him. The same goes for your relationship with yourself. Being responsible for oneself means both taking care of one's own preservation and development, and a reasonable ability to manage one's own behavior, not giving free rein to irrational passions.

The first essential condition of responsibility is the very freedom of action. If a person was bound, unconscious, or imprisoned, there is no free choice, and we cannot hold the individual morally responsible for what happened to him and around him. He didn't have a choice. He could not act according to his will.

The second most important condition for the completeness of a person's moral responsibility is the premeditation of his actions. We are morally responsible, first of all, for what we wanted to do, what we consciously chose, what we aspired to. But what if we brought harm to others by accident, by mistake, unintentionally? As then? It must be said that unintentionality, although it mitigates moral responsibility, does not completely remove it. If someone played with a gun and accidentally killed his best friend, he also experiences pangs of conscience and suffers from guilt. And if the court acquits such an accidental killer or punishes him only for negligence in handling weapons - that is, for frivolity, then the moral responsibility will be much higher. Perhaps it is paradoxical, but people who unwittingly caused other people's troubles, often completely “guilty without fault”, experience the entire burden of responsibility for what happened, even if no one from the outside condemns them strictly. Probably, this happens because it is difficult for us to console ourselves with the role of the “toy of fate” and the “tool of fate”. The question always arises: “Why me and not another?” We do not want to be a simple means even in the hands of Providence, we are intensely looking for a hidden impulse of our own that can explain our dramatic role in someone else's life history, and this "personal interpretation" of what happened makes us feel responsible.

Responsible behavior is opposed to irresponsible - these are acts "at random", actions that are performed somehow, without taking into account the consequences for oneself and for others. Irresponsibility is always associated with indifference and frivolity, or with excessive self-confidence, and often with both. When a person irresponsibly makes a free choice, he puts himself and others in a position of a high degree of uncertainty, because the consequences of a rash, random, blind choice are unpredictable. They can probably be detrimental to anyone who is drawn into a particular situation. With irresponsible behavior, the individual does not experience a sense of anxiety, tension inherent in responsibility, does not concentrate his attention on the business he has taken on. He believes that "it will not be easy to take out", and is often mistaken.

And here comes into force the second understanding of responsibility, we are talking about the responsibility that "bear". “To bear responsibility” means to take on all the consequences of the acts committed, in the full sense of the word, to pay for them. In turn, irresponsibility in this context means an attempt to blame the consequences of one's actions on others, to make them pay for their own cowardice, unreason or unbridled daring. Jean-Paul Sartre, who believed that a person is a being absolutely free in choice, saw the only moral norm that people must necessarily obey - this is responsibility for any free choice. You can invent your own morality - the strangest and most bizarre, you can be excessively kind or unrestrainedly cruel - this is your choice. However, at the same time, you must take upon yourself and only upon yourself all the consequences of your behavior. If you say that you were forced, coerced, seduced or confused, you are lying, because the last decision is always made by the person himself. Pain, contempt, exile, ruin must be accepted by the freely choosing individual as well as love, wealth or fame, because every result is the result of his free choice, and not a single soul in the world is responsible for your own actions.

2. The concept of aesthetic. Goodness and beauty in the spiritual experience of modern man

The human world includes beauty, it is intuitively clear to everyone. Every person is capable of love, and for the most part they love the beautiful, the beautiful, the sublime. And accordingly, many, to put it mildly, do not like the ugly and base. However, a naive-intuitive understanding of the world of beauty is not enough for a confident orientation in it. Here, as usual in problematic situations, there is a need for good philosophy. Interestingly, until the middle of the XVIII century. philosophers did not attach due importance to the sphere of beauty. Philosophers of antiquity, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, considered independent sections of philosophy, for example, logic and ethics, but not aesthetics. Why?

The Greek word "aestheticos" means "pertaining to feelings". But feeling was considered just a moment of cognitive or practical activity. When it became clear that the world of the sensual-emotional has not only a subordinate, but also an independent meaning, the time has come for aesthetics, within which such values ​​as beauty and beauty receive their understanding. The founder of aesthetics, Baumgarten, defined beauty as the perfection of the sensual, and art as the embodiment of beauty. The category of the beautiful concretizes the category of beauty, because it is more specific, explicitly includes elements of comparison: something is not just beautiful, but very beautiful, beautiful and as far as possible from the ugly, the antipode of the beautiful. Emphasizing the originality of aesthetic perception, Kant characterized it as "expediency without purpose." Aesthetic judgment is not interested in anything else, it has an independent value. In human life, the aesthetic principle has its own special niche.

Where and how does the aesthetic exist? The simplest answer to this question is as follows: aesthetic, and this includes beauty, is a property of an object. Such an answer from the point of view of understanding the symbolic, symbolic nature of the aesthetic is rather naive. Being included in the process of symbolization, the aesthetic unites, connects the subject with the object, the spiritual with the corporeal. Both "naturalists" who consider aesthetic properties to belong to objects, and those who reduce the aesthetic to the perceptions of the individual, are mistaken. The secret of the aesthetic lies in the amazing consistency of the "face" of the object with the inner emotional-figurative life of a person. In his aesthetic attitude to nature, to others and to himself, a person constantly checks everything for humanity, looking for proportions that would organically connect him with the external environment.

The value character of the aesthetic is especially clearly manifested in the ratio of the beautiful to the ugly in it, and they are far from being equivalent. Man strives not for the ugly and base, but for the beautiful and sublime. Deprive the world of the aesthetically positive, and you will lose much more than half of your sense perception.

In an effort to multiply and develop the world, first of all, the beautiful, the beautiful, a person turns to art. Art, as already noted, is the embodiment of beauty, which, of course, implies the creation of the latter.

Beauty can be expressed by sound, light, substance, movement, rhythm, human body, word, thought, feeling. As you know, there are many types of art: architecture, sculpture, literature, theater, music, choreography, cinema, circus, applied and decorative arts. Every time something is the bearer of beauty, for example, in the case of music, the sounds that are extracted by musicians through musical instruments. Art is the ability to express oneself in terms of beauty. Feelings are also beautiful if they lead to positive value experiences. There are countless examples of this, from the love of Romeo and Juliet to the courage of a warrior defending his homeland.

For a designer, engineer, technician, it is very important to see the similarities and differences between, on the one hand, a work of art and, on the other hand, a technical artifact, i.e. technical product or device. The Greek "techne" means art, craftsmanship. Both the artist and the technician are skilled craftsmen, although the goals of their work and creativity do not coincide. The purpose of a work of art is to function as a symbol of beauty, beauty; the purpose of a technical artifact is its usefulness to humans. It cannot be ruled out that in some cases a technical product is also a work of art, but this is far from always the case. At the same time, any technical artifact does not fall out of the aesthetic world. Moreover, as it turned out, the usefulness of a technical product does not oppose its aesthetic merits, but forms a unity with it that is peculiar, but desirable for a person. Awareness of this fact led to the development of design, artistic construction of objects, including technology. The word "design" is of English origin and very well captures the essence of technical aesthetics. It consists of the root stem "zain" (sign, symbol) and the prefix "di" (separation). The designer carries out various symbolic activities. He translates his spiritual world into technical signs relevant to technology users. For a designer, technology is not just pieces of iron, but a symbol of beauty, beauty. According to Leo Tolstoy, "The concept of beauty not only does not coincide with goodness, but rather is opposite to it, since goodness mostly coincides with victory over addictions, while beauty is the basis of all our addictions." And I, perhaps, agree with this opinion, since goodness is a spiritual state of a person in which he does not pay attention to any external factors affecting him, but is guided by the spirit of the soul and heart. This can be manifested in his work, and in communication with people, actions and thoughts.

Beauty is mainly manifested by some external factors. Take, for example, girls who are only concerned with their appearance, they spend hours in beauty salons, are busy with various procedures, but behind this “doll” mask is empty. There is nothing interesting, communication with them will not bring any impressions and will not cause any emotions. You will say that a person should be beautiful both in body and soul, and I agree with this, but in this case external data become beautiful, and the inner world is absent. This confrontation between goodness and beauty, in my opinion, will always be.

3. Religion and its role in the modern world

Religion (from Latin religio - piety, piety, shrine, object of worship) is a form of worldview in which the development of the world is carried out through its doubling into the otherworldly - "earthly", natural, perceived by the senses, and the otherworldly - "heavenly", supernatural , supersensible. The formation of an artificial (theoretical, artistic or other) "world", in contrast to the real, life, objective world, is a feature of all forms of its spiritual assimilation by people. They say: "the world of scientific theory", "the world of fairy tales", "the world of music". The specificity of religion lies in the special nature of its "second" world and its semantic role. The basis of the religious worldview is the belief in the existence of one or another variety of supernatural forces and in their dominant role in the universe and people's lives.

Faith is a way of existence of religious consciousness, a special mood, an experience that characterizes its internal state. An external, socially significant form of manifestation of faith is a cult - a system of established rituals, dogmas. Socially significant ideas, feelings, actions are combined in religion, as well as in the worldview in general, with the individual involvement of people in its ideas, images, meanings, with their personal creativity. Both are obligatory "poles", conditions for the life of religious consciousness.

Religious ideas cannot be derived from the feelings and experiences of an individual. They are a product of the historical development of society. There were and still are many variants of religious beliefs. Such forms of religions as Christianity, Buddhism, Islam are considered world and to this day have a large number of adherents in different countries. Religion is a socially organized (and organizing) faith of human communities, a form of their worship of "higher powers", and thus the most revered values ​​embodied in them by this society.

The nature of a religious worldview is complex and requires careful study. Until recently, its assessment in our literature has been extremely simplified and coarsened; it was interpreted simply as a system of "ignorant" ideas about the world and man. Meanwhile, religion is a certain phenomenon of spiritual culture, a form of ideology that has a social nature and functions. The ideological content and social roles of religious teachings are ambiguous, subject to historical changes and rethinking. What is their most common essence?

Studies show that fantastic religious ideas about animate forces, unreasonably superior to human, "natural" forces, reflect the constant intrusion into people's lives of natural and social processes that are "alien" to them, bearing the features of chance, catastrophicity. The mysterious forces of nature and history (rock, fate) were interpreted as "higher forces". Religion developed on the basis of the consciousness of people's dependence on such uncontrollable forces as the illusory replenishment of society's weakness in front of them. The principles of good and evil were bizarrely intertwined in ideas about "higher powers", the demonic and divine sides of religion developed in parallel for a long time. Hence the mixed feeling of fear and respect of believers in relation to higher powers. From the nightmare of evil spirits, believers sought salvation in turning to divine powers.

The worship of "higher powers" gradually leads to the concept (image) of God - the highest being worthy of worship. In the mature forms of religions, the idea of ​​God conquers everything demonic, frees itself from it. By analogy with the relationship "father - son" and others, God is thought of as the lord and at the same time the intercessor, the savior of man. God is also thought of as the guardian of custom, tradition, morality, cultural ties that bind people, and spiritual values ​​revered in society. The egoistic desire to propitiate the gods, to call them as assistants is combined with their disinterested veneration, the desire to follow a high standard. With the strengthening of this moment, the development within the framework of religious consciousness - at its highest levels - of ethical ideas, ideals, norms is connected. The religious and ethical attitude towards the deity often gives faith a bright, joyful character, contributing to the formation of high universal values.

Religion is a complex spiritual formation and socio-historical phenomenon that does not fit into unambiguous, straightforward characteristics. One of the historical missions of religion, acquiring unprecedented relevance in the modern world, has been and is the formation of consciousness of the unity of the human race, the significance of universal human moral norms, enduring values. But in the same religious worldview, completely different moods and ideas can be expressed: fanaticism, enmity towards people of a different faith, of which there are many examples in the past and present. The experience of our days gives examples of irreconcilable enmity between different groups of people of the same faith. But this, we repeat, does not provide grounds for an unambiguous assessment of the socio-political role of religious views in general.

Religion is a multifaceted and multi-valued phenomenon. It is generated by the specific laws of the development of society. Social processes will ultimately determine its fate. Today, with all the vulnerability of the ideas of the supernatural world principle in the light of the achievements of science, with all the fantastic forms in which the religious worldview is expressed, the influence of religious ideas on the public consciousness of different countries and regions is still very great.

This is largely due to the fact that the "human world" of religions in its own way reflects the vast real life experience of mankind, snores a system of emotional and figurative ideas and experiences, values, norms of life, moral ideals that are so necessary for modern humanity. With the help of solemn, festive rituals, religion cultivates human feelings of love, kindness, tolerance, compassion, mercy, conscience, duty, justice, and others, seeking to give them a special value, to associate with the experience of the sublime, sacred. Raising the spiritual and value side of people's lives on a pedestal, religious consciousness contributed to the development of human spirituality, this indeed “supernatural” aspect of human existence in a certain sense. It is social and therefore cannot be captured by means of natural, "natural" explanations. In addition, it is associated with the ideal side of culture, with human subjectivity, and therefore is not grasped as something material, tangible, and is less amenable to rational-theoretical interpretation and regulation.

It can be concluded that religion has been and remains the most important factor in the formation of a morally stable and humane society. After all, religion makes a person understand what is good and what is bad; respect for ancestors and respect for parents.

Conclusion

The values ​​that ensure human life are health and safety, material wealth, relations in society that contribute to the self-realization of the individual and the freedom of her choice. The moral values ​​of a person are a set of rules and norms of behavior in society. These rules should guide a person in his life.

The most important condition for the morality of the individual is his freedom. . If we do not choose anything of our own free will, we are not free. However, we will not be fully free, since we are dependent on moral social principles and legislation. Well, of course, responsibility for one's actions should be inherent in a person from childhood, without it there will be no personality as such.

Aesthetic is a metacategory, that is, the broadest and most fundamental category of aesthetics. It reflects the common features of the beautiful, the ugly, the sublime, the base, the tragic, the comic, the dramatic and other characteristics of life and art.

Good lies within a person. Good should improve the world, make it better, because the more good we do, the more it comes back to us. But if goodness and beauty are united, our life will shine with all the colors of life.

Well, in conclusion, I will talk about religion. It keeps our minds and actions within a certain moral framework, teaches us to respect our parents and respect our elders. This is not always the case these days, but still, for the most part, we try to keep to this moral framework.

List of used literature

1. Lavrinenko V.N., Ratnikova V.T. "Philosophy". - M.: Unity-Dana, 2004. 356-360str.

2. Spirin A.G. "Philosophy". - M.: Gardariki, 2004. 279-283 pp.

3. Rychkov A.K. "Philosophy". - M.: Vlados, 2004. 173-175 pp.

4. Guchilov N.F. "Philosophy". - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2004. 298-301 pp.

5. Kokhanovsky V.P. "Philosophy". - Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 2005. 340-342 pp.

6. Gubin V.D. "Philosophy". - M.: Prospekt, 2007. 184-187 pp.

7. Alekseev P.V., A.V. Panin "Philosophy". - Prospect, 2008. 365-367 pages.

8. Razin A.V. "Philosophy". - M.: Gardariki, 2006. 304-307 pp.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Moral values ​​are an important component of every personality. It is they who determine what society will be like, whether it will be safe and pleasant to live in it. Problems in society begin when moral values ​​disappear from the first place in the minds of people and are replaced by material values.

A healthy society can only be called a society that devotes sufficient moral values ​​to a person and instills them in the younger generation.

Sometimes you can meet people who consider moral and moral values ​​to be a relic of the past. There is even an opinion that in order to achieve the goal, all means are good. However, in the lives of people with such views, there comes a moment of insight, insight, when it becomes clear that it is precisely moral values ​​that can bring peace and happiness to the soul. Rich people and politicians, stage stars and influential people one day come to the understanding that power and money cannot replace peace of mind, kindred spirits and health.

Highest moral values

Moral values ​​are historically and socially conditioned. Each era had its own values. The ancient Greeks called moral values ​​"ethical virtues". The virtues included:

• prudence;
• goodwill;
• justice;
• courage.

Judaism, Christianity and Islam speak of such higher moral values ​​as faith in God, obedience and reverence.

The most common moral values ​​are:

• honesty;
• loyalty;
• altruism;
• diligence;
• respect for elders.

Although these qualities are not always manifested in people's lives, they are always highly valued, and people who possess them are respected. Values ​​in their impeccable and perfect expression are called ethical ideals. For example, the ethical ideal of Christianity is Jesus Christ.

Moral values ​​are supported by moral regulations - rules of conduct that come from moral values ​​and differ depending on the culture of the society and the values ​​that reign in it.

Each more or less stable culture has a certain system of universally recognized moral regulations, or moral norms. These rules are considered binding in a given society. In a Christian society, such norms are the 10 commandments described in the Old Testament.

The spiritual and moral values ​​of a person closely intersect with the search for the meaning of life, when a person tries to find a more important meaning of his existence than just living this life and raising offspring. Moral values ​​guide a person in this direction, suggesting that life is given so that people help each other, which helps to improve character.

Formation of moral values

Moral values ​​are formed in a person almost from his birth. The kid absorbs the moral norms of the family in which he lives, and over time learns to embody them into life. Sometimes a child faces internal conflict caused by differences in values ​​in society and in his family. At this time, the child learns to make a choice in favor of some specific values. For example, a child has been taught not to lie since childhood. But, going to school, he is faced with a situation where classmates force him to tell a lie. This moment of moral choice is always difficult. However, it is important to remain honest with yourself. If a person acts contrary to his ideas of morality, then he will be tormented by conscience.

Of course, an adult child can overestimate the values ​​that his parents brought up in him and choose others. However, it is often the very values ​​that were instilled in childhood that remain in a person for life.

Values ​​are generally accepted rules of behavior based on human principles. They are not regulated legally, but for the most part they are interpreted in the codes of law, which means they are provided to us and the state.

Since ancient times, scientific minds have deduced a number of qualities that characterize the "ideal citizen". For him, at all times, such moral values ​​as masculinity, courage, generosity, justice, kindness, mercy were characteristic. Everyone should strive for such a bright image (according to the plan of the ancient experts). Of course, wanting and complying are two different things. But people always want to dream and strive for the best.

Religion

Faith has always been an important driving force. Islam, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism - all these religious movements basically have all the same generally accepted rules of behavior in society that must be observed. They are collected in a set of laws or commandments, supported by the motivation of the followers of a particular religion.

Do not kill, do not steal, do not deceive, do not harm your neighbor ... For a believer, this is like a guide to action. In addition, all the commandments are well in common with the legislation. Spiritual and moral values ​​are built on their basis. Among other things, for a religious person, they mean grace, which ultimately leads to a better life.

Upbringing

From the earliest years, a person, even a tiny one, is surrounded by society with its own rules and norms. It is he who, from childhood, lays the foundation for us on which the formation of moral values ​​will take place.

First, parents, by their own example, show the child what is good, what is bad, what is possible and impossible. Further, his life will be influenced by teachers who, in addition to demonstrating their own example, in an accessible form convey to the consciousness the norms of correct behavior in society, show the boundary between good and evil, explain how thin it can be.

Teenage maximalism

In adolescence, reappraisal often occurs. Parents and teachers talk about how to do it, but friends and peers think that this is bad, but good is another thing. This is where the question of ethical choice arises: creating your own worldview and determining what is important for you and what you should not do.

Freedom of choice is one of the vowel freedoms of man. It is given to us by nature upon birth and is even enshrined in law. The person decides how to act.

But the freedom of one, as you know, ends where the freedom of another begins. It is during adolescence that people most often make some mistakes, sometimes break laws, try the forbidden, make the wrong decisions. All this somehow helps in the formation of a personality with its own system of values.

Kindness

Mercy, self-sacrifice, charity, helping the weak and infirm - all these moral values ​​are characteristic of a good person. "Good" seems to be a simple and unambiguous concept, but everything is not so simple. It can be interpreted in different ways. Everything depends on the moral values ​​of a person.

For each, the criteria for good are different: for some, the absence of evil is already good, for others it is contained in specific deeds. Both take place, and, in fact, are good. There are also more examples that describe not so good deeds, but they are explained by the best of intentions. Sometimes it can be very difficult to determine the thin line between good and evil.

people around

Man, as you know, is a social being - one is both boring and sad, and there is no one to talk to. Around us almost always a lot of people, very different. These are our parents, and people of the older generation, and those who are younger than us. All these people around influence us and contribute to the understanding that there are moral values ​​of the society in which we find ourselves.

Individuals have different values ​​and degrees of authority for us. We listen to someone more and even go for advice, we try to be like someone. Some people are remembered by our actions, others - by the spoken words that leave a mark, make us think.

One way or another, the environment affects everyone. In the course of historical changes in society, there are also changes that affect moral values. What was considered immoral a couple of centuries ago is now considered the norm, once “wild” things are today an everyday phenomenon. There are also controversial human moral values, for example, the preservation of innocence until marriage.

Immorality

What is meant by the term "bad"? Everything seems to be extremely simple, but in the modern world, good and bad are so closely intertwined and confused that it is difficult to distinguish one from the other. Some spiritual and moral values ​​seem insignificant. Today it is fashionable to be strong and powerful, to despise weakness and impotence. To achieve their goals, people often forget about friendship, love, respect, mutual assistance, mercy and much more, which is considered to be right and kind.

Of course, each person decides for himself what is good and what is bad, but in any case, white always remains white, and black always remains black. And there are things, stepping over which, we commit immoral acts. And they cannot be justified by referring to the thin lines between good and evil.